Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#231

Post by endersshadow » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 3:05 PM UTC

Aloisius wrote: post #183

endersshadow wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great question! The answer is a resounding no! Also, just because you're profitable doesn't mean you have a positive cash flow! Profit is what's called Net Income (for argument's sake, let's do EBIT--Earnings Before Income Taxes). Cash flow is simply your delta in cash from one period to the next. Lots of things go into net income, but essentially it's revenue minus costs. Because of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounti…

EBIT is Earnings before Interest & Taxes, not Earnings before Income Taxes.

Yes, you're correct--brain fart.

OP, you'll also see EBITDA, which is Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amoritization.

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#232

Post by calinet6 » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 3:05 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #210

stcredzero wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford is striking me as innovative nowadays. Eliminating the gas cap is one example.

I really like a lot of what I hear about Ford's doings recently. For example, they will be introducing a very euro-esque 1.0L 3-cyl turbo engine for the Fiesta to the USA market. Not only do I like that move, but the engine has a lot of really neat, innovative design points.

They are truly innovating, but not in gimmicks or specs.

They're producing quality again. Starting to get it, I think.

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#233

Post by mpyne » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 3:06 PM UTC

to3m wrote: post #226

mdonahoe wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I would enjoy is never having to stop for gas before commuting to work. Charge it overnight, and I am certain to have enough. No more driving on fumes because I forgot I was low and I don't have time to do it in the morning. The sum of all the time spent at the pump will be greater than the times you spend at Superchargers for the occasional long distance trip.

Filling my car up never bothered me personally. I suppose my thinking is just that while most of the time it will be fine, you won't have to look that far or try that hard to find a journey that would need a recharge to complete. Visiting friends, let's say. Now, what are your options? You could visit the super charger, which could work, but that assumes there is one nearby! (There are currently all of six, and all i…

I think the idea is that most people drive near where they live most of the time.

If it does turn out you need to drive out to the boonies you can rent a car for that on a case-by-case basis, much like how we don't all drive box trucks on the off chance that we might need to move a big TV back home someday. But in the meantime you'd still get the benefit with your normal car.

If you drive long distances more often though, then that obviously changes the decision for now... at this point a Tesla wouldn't be for you until there was more Supercharger infrastructure around the nation.

Honestly we already have something similar going on, at least where I live (in DC) I see those tiny little Smart cars every so often, but you can bet your ass that you don't hardly ever see them outside the Beltway, no one is dumb enough to risk their life in one of those little things on a long-distance trip out of, and back to, DC.

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#234

Post by tocomment » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 3:06 PM UTC

confluence wrote: post #227

tocomment wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds amazing. Could you explain how you set up your hedge, and why it doesn't cost you anything? I'm just starting to learn about option strategies.

Basic strategy (there are others): I own stocks in 100 chunk blocks. I then buy the exact same amount of -15-20% puts to cover my downside risk and simultaneously sell the same amount of ~+10-20% calls and use their premium to make the insurance free. My portfolio value, if hedged perfectly and fully backed with cash is now locked to +/- ~20% (depending on IV) at little to no cost. More here: http://www.investopedia.…

But from you other posts it sounds like your expecting greater than 20% growth.

I'd just worry 20% growth could happen fairly quickly.

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#235

Post by calinet6 » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 3:11 PM UTC

ryanhuff wrote: post #128

calinet6 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like saying that Sony can make an mp3 player, so the iPod isn't competitive in that market. Or that a 5GB iPod won't hold enough music, so it's just an expensive toy. Within 5-10 years the battery problem will improve, especially if there is demand. This is technology, not automotive development. We're not in Detroit anymore. They're in a different class. Tesla is set up to do it right from the start at a muc…

Its a bit presumptuous to say that Tesla is so different. Sure, they are attractive at the moment because of unique niche they are filling. If BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, Acura, etc all sold an all-electric vehicle with similar range, Tesla's differentiation becomes much less unique, and normal competitive factors come into play (scale, marketing, etc).

I think it's a fallacy to ignore the holistic quality they're producing.

The top post in this thread has a good idea of it—they're producing not only a drastically different drivetrain technology-wise, but also a drastically improved ride, driving experience, and controlling every aspect of the car purchasing, driving, and servicing experience. (And with superchargers, also the refueling experience to a degree).

This is strikingly reminiscent of Apple's model. This is why I made the comparison, and I think it's highly valid. I don't mean to compare their product or level of innovation or even the amount of differentiation. I mean to compare the companies and their models. And I not only believe it's a successful model, I believe it's been proven and will continue to be proven.

If you break it down and look at individual parts in isolation, sure, you can see ways they could be beat. But that's the problem with this way of thinking—Tesla is not breaking it down. They see the whole picture, and that will lead to their success. That's the key.

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#236

Post by confluence » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 3:14 PM UTC

tocomment wrote: post #234

confluence wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic strategy (there are others): I own stocks in 100 chunk blocks. I then buy the exact same amount of -15-20% puts to cover my downside risk and simultaneously sell the same amount of ~+10-20% calls and use their premium to make the insurance free. My portfolio value, if hedged perfectly and fully backed with cash is now locked to +/- ~20% (depending on IV) at little to no cost. More here: http://www.investopedia.…

But from you other posts it sounds like your expecting greater than 20% growth. I'd just worry 20% growth could happen fairly quickly.

That's what we in finance call a good problem to have.

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#237

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 3:46 PM UTC

ryanhuff wrote: post #129

fghh45sdfhr3 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that most of the time market leaders resist cannibalizing the main source of their income is well known. The reasons are complex and connected to the nature of large human organizations. And it is also why most truly disruptive innovation is driven by smaller companies.

Automobile manufacturers already offer petrol and diesel engine vehicles. How is this any different from a cannibalization perspective?

This cannibalization argument is the same reason that Henry Ford only sold black cars.

Car companies didn't (actually, if you go back long enough ago, they did, but they're over it now) have to transform their company and manufacturing processes in radical ways when they began offering both types of fuel, any more than had to when they began offering multiple cylinder displacement options (2.0L, 454cc, etc.) Diesel and gas engines both require fuel systems, radiators, alternators, air intakes, exhaust pipes with mufflers, transmissions, etc. It is actually possible (although not always easy) to just replace one type of engine with the other in a user-owned car, so much more in the factory.

It is quite another thing to rip out everything involved in the motive function, except the axles, wheels, and tires. If BMW wait too long to start the process, they won't get the results to a BMW quality level for many years. They'll have to decide whether they want to saddle the brand image with crappy electrical cars or if they'd prefer to sell their crappy electrical cars with a low-prestige marque.

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#238

Post by bonzoesc » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 4:11 PM UTC

snuze wrote: post #229

stcredzero wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford is striking me as innovative nowadays. Eliminating the gas cap is one example.

I would argue that the example you picked is more of a gimmick than true innovation. Tesla also eliminated the gas cap, along with the gas tank, and the gas engine...

California emissions regulations[1] gave them a reason to reengineer the fuel filler parts, and they built something that's inexpensive, genuinely nicer to use, and can be used by more people. I appreciate that they improved part of my $24k Mustang without making me buy a $57k electric car I wouldn't really reap the benefits from anyways (I don't commute, most of my driving is a 200 mile highway trip).

Tesla's main innovation isn't electric cars, it's electric car fashion.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_zero-emissions_vehicle... "zero evaporative (fuel system) emissions"

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#239

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #230

jpxxx wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether the USG is a collection of well minded do-gooders, an inept bureaucracy that can't tell one hand from another, a literal collection of antichrists, or absolutely none of the above: the USG has guns.

So do the militiamen in Montana, so what exactly is your point? The bobbies patrolling the streets in the U.K. are unarmed but people still seem to respect the rule of law over there, companies can still be seized, etc. In fact there are probably even a few Western democracies without so much as a military that still could pass laws to nationalize a business. "Guns" are the least of your problems with government from…

The "gun" narrative, in addition to being literally true, also has the rhetorical advantage of emotionally short-circuiting many people of a particular ideological bent. While you fume about being explicitly associated with the violent force that implicitly enables your everyday actions, you're unable to reply in a fashion that will convince the majority of people who don't have irrational ideas about guns.

(I don't necessarily mean "you" literally, but surely we've seen enough guns-r-bad silliness online to know that it exists.)

Re: Tesla Was Cash Flow Positive Last Week, CEO Musk Says

#240

Post by temphn » Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 4:51 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #230

jpxxx wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether the USG is a collection of well minded do-gooders, an inept bureaucracy that can't tell one hand from another, a literal collection of antichrists, or absolutely none of the above: the USG has guns.

So do the militiamen in Montana, so what exactly is your point? The bobbies patrolling the streets in the U.K. are unarmed but people still seem to respect the rule of law over there, companies can still be seized, etc. In fact there are probably even a few Western democracies without so much as a military that still could pass laws to nationalize a business. "Guns" are the least of your problems with government from…

From our point of view guns are the core of the problem. An individual can decide not to buy something if they don't like it. Apple can tell Google to piss off when they don't like the terms of a deal. But you can't tell the government to go and pound sand if you don't like the opinion of a regulator.

They have the power to send in the SWAT teams and not vice versa. Try fighting USG on anything of substance and police will quickly appear, and with them guns, and then your choice is to die, to be imprisoned, or to submit.

The Buckyballs owner just had to submit. CPSC put him out of business:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/02/magnetic-buckyballs...

This is one of the stories that made the papers. Most don't. FDA alone issued 10000+ 483s in 2011:

http://blog.fdazilla.com/2011/09/fda-will-issue-10000-483s-i...

mpyne, because you are within the federal government you don't see its bad side. Most of your work is just office work. Your agency is not about to be banned by another agency. The worst thing that can happen is that the budget is not substantially increased.

Things are a sight more dangerous for non-government businesses in the US today, at least those which are in politically unfavored categories (like Keystone XL) rather than politically favored ones (like the green energy companies).

While once in a while it so happens that political favor coincides with technological merit, as in the case of Tesla, most of the time innovation means pissing people off. Innovation and consensus are antonyms. Innovation is not democratic, committees don't make breakthroughs, and it'd be nice to not have to deal with a regulator waving a gun in one's face when your disruption disrupts their assumptions.